Introduction
In 1996 an almost nine-year effort to establish a Man and the Biosphere Reserve in the Ozark portions of Missouri and Arkansas was abandoned under a storm of public controversy. The Ozark Highlands Man and the Biosphere Reserve (OMAB) was thwarted by local residents who purportedly stood to benefit most from the honorary designation. Amid wild rumors of UN invasions, government conspiracies, and environmentalist plots, some Ozark citizens took the OMAB Steering Committee by surprise, turning the uneventful, drawn-out nomination process into a public battle over competing interpretations of MAB goals, objectives, and consequences. The controversy left officials and citizens alike wondering what happened and why.
This research was undertaken to flesh out the issues and examine the events that turned the Ozarks into a hotbed of controversy over MABs, the United Nations, and property rights. To accomplish this task, we undertook this project with several goals in mind. First, we wanted to chronicle the history of the nomination and the resulting controversy, noting key participants and pivotal events. Our second goal was to characterize the motives, arguments, and grievances of both proponents and opponents of the OMAB nomination. Finally, we wanted to discover what about the nomination process either contributed to or mitigated the conflict and, knowing that, to determine what lessons might be learned for future MAB nominations.
The study took approximately one year to complete. The present report is a reflection of our efforts to understand the Ozark MAB nomination attempt and the resulting public condemnation of both the local nomination effort and the MAB program in general. To effectively report our findings, this report is divided into five chapters. The remainder of the first chapter is devoted, first, to a description of the research methods. Also, to quickly familiarize the reader with the Ozark MAB experience, we spend some time generally describing the OMAB nomination and also provide a chronological description of the nomination process and controversy.
Chapters Two through Four each deal with a particular aspect of the OMAB nomination experience. Chapter Two, entitled "The OMAB Steering Committee: Interest, Investment, and Choices," focuses on the strategies and the efforts of the OMAB Steering Committee. Here we describe the nomination process from the proponents' perspective, particularly the motivations, participation, and the strategies of the nominating group's Steering Committee and its participants. We highlight those factors that likely contributed to public dissention and protest against the proposed Biosphere Reserve. Recommendations are made about how the committee structure and nominating process may be improved in the future.
Chapter Three, "Community Role, Awareness, and Involvement," is in many ways a continuation of the discussion on the OMAB nomination process. In this chapter, however, we focus primarily on the community or public dimension of the nomination process. We address those aspects of the MAB program meant to incorporate the interests of local citizens, as well as to benefit them. The community dimension of the OMAB nomination specifically addresses those aspects of the nomination meant to include, inform, and address local communities and residents. This chapter presents a summary of opponent critiques of Steering Committee public outreach efforts and concludes with recommendations for community inclusion in future MAB nomination efforts.
Chapter Four, "The Opposition: Who, How, and Why?," focuses on the individuals and groups in the Ozarks who worked against the OMAB nomination. This chapter describes the extent and nature of opposition activism, opponent strategies, and the central claims and grievances espoused by anti-OMAB activists. Great attention is paid to describing opponent beliefs and concerns, as well as to tracing the social, historical, and cultural roots of those beliefs. Finally, we draw several conclusions about what the opposition in the Ozarks means for the MAB program in general, along with future efforts to establish Biosphere Reserves in the Ozarks.
In the final chapter, "The OMAB Legacy," we summarize the case study and draw broad conclusions about the source, nature, and implications of this public controversy over a MAB designation.
Research Methods
Data for this research were collected during May of 1997 through May of 1998. We employed three research strategies: personal interviews, personal observations, and content analysis of written documents. Our research goal was to gain a sense of the history of the nomination and controversy, as well as to develop a clear picture of the problems, issues, and experiences of persons both for and against the OMAB nomination.
Our objective in interviewing was to talk with the key players in the controversy, as well as individuals who could provide outside perspectives. We used snowball sampling to identify potential interviewees. During interviews, we asked for the names of other critical actors in the controversy and later pursued these leads. Persons recommended as important interviewees were sent a letter explaining the research and intentions to contact them for an interview. The letter was followed by a phone call to answer their questions and set up an interview. After the initial letter, we made three attempts to contact prospective interviewees by telephone. If they could not be reached on the third attempt, no further attempts were made.
Due to the controversial nature of the OMAB issue at the time interviews were conducted and for the convenience and protection of informants, each interviewee was assured anonymity in his or her responses. Unless informants agreed to waive an assurance of anonymity, pseudonyms are used in this report in lieu of interviewees' real names. George Oviatt of National Park Service-Buffalo National River and David Foster, formerly of National Park Service-Ozark National Scenic Riverways, both graciously agreed to waive anonymity. Aliases are used for all other interviewees. Aside from Oviatt and Foster, the only true names appearing in this report are those considered a matter of public record, such as names published in newspaper articles or appearing on government documents.
A total of twenty-two in depth, open-ended interviews were conducted, lasting approximately one hour each. Most of the interviews were tape-recorded and field notes were taken for those interviews not recorded. The interviews were transcribed and analyzed to identify central themes and issues.
Nine interviews were conducted with individuals representing agencies and organizations associated with the OMAB Steering Committee, including three representatives from the Missouri Department of Conservation (MDC), two individuals with the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission (AG&F), and one representative each from the Arkansas Natural Heritage Commission (ANHC), Buffalo National River (BNR), Ozark National Scenic Riverways (ONSR), and Ozark Regional Land Trust (ORLT). This group included the two National Park Service employees, David Foster and George Oviatt, who each led the nomination effort as Steering Committee Chairman during different phases of the nomination process.
In addition to Steering Committee members, several journalists familiar with the issue were interviewed. Interviewees included a newspaper reporter who covered the story in southern Missouri and a newspaper editor from a small southern Missouri paper that devoted pages to stories and letters on the OMAB issue. A reporter from Northern Arkansas who talked with OMAB opponents and wrote a story on the Biosphere Reserve controversy was also interviewed. Finally, we talked with three individuals on the staff of Rural Missouri, a publication with statewide circulation that contained many letters to the editor regarding the Biosphere Reserve issue.
In terms of OMAB opponents, one representative of Take Back Arkansas and two individuals from Missouri Farm Bureau were interviewed specifically about the OMAB issue. In addition, to broaden our understanding of the property rights issue and to gain a greater understanding of the wider conspiracy OMAB opponents often alluded to, representatives from several property rights oriented organizations within mid-Missouri were later interviewed.
In collecting data on the broader property rights issue, three in-depth interviews were most applicable to the MAB research. One interview was conducted with a member of the Missouri Republican Assembly, an ultra-conservative political organization that promotes private property rights as one of its signature political issues. A second interview was conducted with a representative from People for the West1, a national activist group working to impede or reverse environmental regulations that affect property rights or land use in the United States. Finally, a project researcher spoke with a member of Citizens for Private Property Rights, a watchdog organization formed in the late 1980's in response to a statewide initiative geared toward addressing water quality in Missouri. Although data from these three interviews do not directly appear in this report, findings from these supplemental interviews and experiences contributed to the report in terms of providing background on factual information, an understanding of the broader issues, and refining the overall conclusions and recommendations.
Lastly, a University of Missouri Extension agent working in southern Missouri was interviewed. Although University of Missouri Extension was not involved with the OMAB nomination, this representative was able to provide reflections and opinions from an agency perspective.
Three property rights conferences between November of 1997 and April of 1998 were attended by either Sandy Rikoon or Theresa Goedeke. One observation was completed in November of 1997 at the First Annual Conference of Take Back Arkansas (TBA)2 Chapters hosted in Harrison, AR. This meeting provided an opportunity to meet local property rights activists, as well as hear about and view documentation presented as proof of a United Nations-environmental conspiracy by many who had actively participated in stopping the OMAB nomination3.
The remaining two property rights seminars were sponsored by the Missouri Republican Assembly. One seminar, called Private Property Rights in Peril, took place in February of 1998 in Columbia, MO and the other, simply called Private Property Rights, was held in April 1998 in Festus, MO. At these conferences we were able to interact with conference attendees and some speakers, and heard key environmental/United Nations conspiracy experts, such as Henry Lamb publisher of ęco•logic, talk about their beliefs and present their evidence4. Field notes were taken at conferences and were later transcribed and analyzed.
Information gathered through interviews and observations may have been impacted by timing of the research and the situational context. Our data were collected many years after the onset of the OMAB nomination process, and a short time after the height of the controversy. Therefore, both time and events likely had some impact on interviewees' memories of the experience and their ability to recall details. Further, interviewees' willingness to speak or speak candidly may have been affected by the ongoing political and social fallout, which continued well into 1997.
For these reasons, content analysis of documents was conducted to augment data collected from interviews and observations. Specifically, we collected and analyzed popular print media, correspondence/memorandums, Internet documents, official MAB publications, and a medley of papers, documents, and publications cited and recommended by OMAB proponents and opponents.
We sampled newspaper media coverage of the issue from May of 1997 to approximately October of 1997. From newspaper and magazine publications we collected articles, advertisements, and letters to the editor dealing with MABs, the OMAB nomination, or other issues related to the controversy. Print media materials were collected in several ways. Most materials were either provided to the researcher by interviewees and research contacts or obtained from newspaper publishers.
Our media collection focused on local Ozark papers in Missouri and Arkansas, but also included publications with regional, state, or national circulation. We gathered approximately 200 articles/published letters from 32 publications. For a complete list of newspapers sampled, see Appendix A.
Newspapers in Missouri in Arkansas were identified using the 1997 Press Association directories for both states. We selected newspapers published in regions where the controversy was the greatest, particularly Central-Southern Missouri and Northern Arkansas. We wrote or called newspaper editors to inquire about whether they had published articles or letters associated with MAB. If they responded positively, we requested copies of the papers containing the stories or photocopies of the published materials. In some cases editors indicated that they could not easily gather and send such materials. When possible we traveled to those newspaper offices and gathered the information.
In many cases, interviewees provided a quantity and variety of documents and publications pertinent to the Biosphere Reserve issue. We were fortunate in being allowed access to the accumulated files of correspondence, notes, memorandums, and clippings compiled by individuals connected with the nomination or interested in the controversy.
Internet documents were also examined in this research. From May to August of 1997, the Internet was periodically searched using key words and phrases associated the Man and the Biosphere Reserve Program and, specifically, the Ozarks nomination attempt. Pertinent documents were downloaded or printed for analysis. Also, key Websites were identified and marked for periodic inspection to check for new postings. A list of URL's periodically accessed is found in Appendix A of this report.
Official US and UN MAB publications and documents were analyzed to gain an understanding of the official theoretical and practical meanings, intentions, and uses of a Biosphere Reserve. Such documents were also consulted to examine opponent claims and accusations regarding the OMAB and local implications of a designation. Finally, a variety of documents, publications, and videos were consulted because they were cited or recommended by OMAB opponents. See Appendix B for a list of opposition resources and materials.
The OMAB: A Brief Description and History
In the following section we furnish background information on the nomination and process, and provide a brief timeline punctuating important events in both the nomination process and the ensuing controversy. The following overview of the OMAB issue is described with brevity by design. Here our goal is simply to familiarize the reader with the places, times, and events of the Ozarks experience. Later chapters provide the reader with greater detail on critical events.
At this point it is important to note that, although attention to the history of the OMAB experience is necessary, it is beyond the scope of this report to provide a disinterested and exhaustive historical account of the issue. Instead, we focus on those factors, events, and circumstances especially related to the problems and controversies of the case study.
The OMAB nomination process, from idea inception to the demise of the nomination, spanned almost nine years. Much happened during those years both in terms of proponent planning activities and, later, opponent resistance. Because this research began after the demise of the proposed nomination, details surrounding the early history of the nomination process and, in some cases, the controversy were often lost to lapses in memory or turnover of steering committee representatives. However, drawing from interviews, documents, and publications we have tried to piece together an accurate history of both the nomination and the controversy.
The proposed bioregional boundary of the Ozark Highlands Man and the Biosphere Reserve was based on existing estimations of the Ozark Plateau physiographic province which includes extensive portions of Missouri and Arkansas, and, to a lesser extent, Oklahoma and Kansas (Faulkner and White 1991)5. Within that larger region, the Steering Committee focused on two areas referred to as "study areas" or Biosphere Reserve sites, with boundaries defined in terms of the Buffalo, Current, and Eleven Point River watersheds (Faulkner and White 1991). Figure 1, taken from page twenty-nine of the Feasibility Study for an Ozark Man and the Biosphere Cooperative (hereafter Feasibility Study), shows the defined boundaries of both the Ozark Plateau and the proposed study areas.
According to a 1994 draft of the nomination proposal, some 82,840 hectares of land, including 79,772 hectares of publicly owned land held in trust by state and federal agencies and 3,068 hectares owned by the Nature Conservancy, would have been included in the OMAB core areas 6. The zone or area of managed use, sometimes called the buffer zone, would have included 616,136 hectares of lands owned by both federal and state agencies7. According to the Feasibility Study, as well as Steering Committee members we spoke with, no privately or publicly held lands would have been included in either the core areas or manage use areas unless a landowner or manager chose to participate voluntarily in the MAB program (Faulkner and White 1991).
Finally, the zone of cooperation or zone of transition would have included 13,545,576 hectares of mostly private lands. This area, according to the Feasibility Study (Faulkner and White 1991:15), would have focused on "education, training, and application of sustainable, conservation-minded resource development and use." Steering Committee members we interviewed agreed that the zone of cooperation would not have been subject to additional laws or regulations as a consequence of the implementation of a Biosphere Reserve.
The idea of implementing an Ozark Highlands Man and the Biosphere Reserve (OMAB), occasionally referred to as the Ozark Plateau Man and the Biosphere Reserve, was first conceived in 1988 at a meeting sponsored by US MAB at Land Between the Lakes National Park in Kentucky. At this meeting, the "Man and Biosphere Selection Committee was reviewing potential areas that might fit into the program (David Foster, personal interview)." According to David Foster, the first Steering Committee chair and the impetus for local action on the nomination,
The U.S. Man and the Biosphere Program invited a number of different agencies in to talk about the potential of nomination of some areas or what the potential was in the interior highlands, which includes the Ozarks Highlands. (personal interview)
Foster, then with the National Park Service (NPS) at Ozark National Scenic Riverways, attended this meeting as the NPS Ozark region representative. He indicated that at the conclusion of this meeting,
They (US MAB) decided that it looked like the Ozarks Highlands should pursue [a nomination]. It looked like [the Ozarks] would fit well in the program. They didn't have an area that represented this particular region at all within the program. That was their objective overall, to get a spread of areas that represented all the major natural regions of the country. (personal interview)
US MAB thus instigated the choice of the Ozarks as a potential candidate for Biosphere Reserve designation. After returning to Missouri, Foster began to ask natural resource agencies and environmental organizations about interest in establishment of a Biosphere Reserve in the Ozarks. He began to enlist the support of state and federal agencies, as well as some environmental organizations.
After the 1988 meeting, a steering committee formed. According to Foster, for four or five years after the inception of the nomination effort, committee members focused on gathering information and gaining knowledge necessary to carry out the nomination. Foster stated that tasks toward the completion of the nomination were completed intermittently, only as participants had time to devote to the nomination. He noted, "it was four or five years before we got to a point where we had enough information, knowledge, and readings under our belts to sit down and say this is the kind of program that we think we should put together (David Foster, personal interview)."
During this period, the Committee spent a great deal of energy trying to hash out the details of the nomination. They focused on such tasks as articulating the overall mission and objectives of the program, agreeing on language and definitions used in the cooperative agreement, and determining the lands to be included in the Biosphere Reserve. In addition to meeting several times during this period, the Steering Committee kept the process going through correspondence and phone contacts.
Part of the information gathering process included the sponsorship of a feasibility study in 1991. Partially funded by US MAB, the purpose of this study was to determine the possibility and potential benefits of establishing a Biosphere Reserve in the Ozarks. When the Feasibility Study was commissioned, 28 individuals representing 16 agencies and organizations, or divisions within the same agencies, were listed as nomination sponsors. Participating agencies and non-governmental organizations were: Arkansas Game and Fish Commission, Arkansas Natural Heritage Commission, Buffalo National River, Mark Twain National Forest, Missouri Department of Conservation, Missouri Department of Natural Resources, National Park Service-Midwest Region, National Park Service-Washington Office, Ozark National Forest, Ozark National Scenic Riverways, Pioneer Forest, The Nature Conservancy-Arkansas, The Nature Conservancy-Headquarters, The Nature Conservancy-Midwest Region, The Nature Conservancy-Missouri, and Winrock International (Faulkner and White 1991:114).
The study declared the OMAB a possibility, concluding that the
...establishment of an Ozark Man and the Biosphere Cooperative is recommended. Private citizens and public agencies should become members of a coordinating committee to establish and oversee the program and to identify the priority issues to be addressed. Participation by local residents will be key to such a program. (Faulkner and White 1991:6)
The Steering Committee embraced these positive findings and moved forward toward a nomination.
After completing most of the information gathering, the Steering Committee began to solicit the involvement of additional agencies and organizations they believed would be beneficial additions to the nomination process and established Biosphere Reserve. They wanted to include agencies and organizations having an interest in the OMAB and those that might further the goals of the program, including organizations managing natural resources and/or controlling land in the Ozarks. In 1992 the Committee invited Ozark Regional Land Trust (ORLT) to join the nomination effort. ORLT is a non-profit organization that manages donated Ozark land in order to conserve land and resources in the region. ORLT accepted the invitation and became the only regional, non-governmental organization to participate in the OMAB nomination.
In November of 1993, ORLT and Winrock International8 sponsored the Ozark Highlands Man and the Biosphere Bioregional Conference held in Harrison, AR, the headquarters of Buffalo National River National Park. At this meeting, speakers described the MAB program and discussed the proposed OMAB nomination9. This was the only public forum conducted in the region about the OMAB effort. Some Steering Committee members also reported giving talks about the proposed Biosphere Reserve to private groups and at other natural resource conferences during this period.
A draft of the Biosphere Reserve Nomination Form was completed in 1994. This document detailed the technical specifications of the OMAB, inventoried the natural and cultural assets of the region, enumerated proposed activities within, and described the benefits of the Biosphere Reserve. Agencies listed as contributors to the nomination were Arkansas Natural Heritage Commission, Buffalo National River - National Park Service; Ozark National Forest; The Nature Conservancy; Mark Twain Nation Forest; Missouri Department of Conservation; Missouri Department of Natural Resources; Ozark National Scenic Riverways - National Park Service; and Pioneer Forest (the land holdings of a private landowner in Missouri).
However, while awaiting feedback from Steering Committee members about the content of the nomination proposal and other documents, the process got off track. During the final stretch of the nomination process, Dave Foster, the Committee's first chairman and the driving force behind the nomination, retired. After Foster's retirement in late 1995, the nomination effort lulled for several months. George Oviatt of Buffalo National River took over the nomination effort the following year. According to Oviatt, the nomination proposal, OMAB mission statement, and the cooperative agreement document were all completed by the time he took over as chairman. All that was necessary to complete the nomination was a final review of these documents by OMAB Committee members and, if all was in order, signatures on the cooperative agreement. In an effort to see the project through to fruition, in July of 1996 Oviatt sent a letter to participating agencies and organizations to inquire at to their interest in completing the nomination.
While the nomination lulled, opposition began to emerge and grow. Opponents in Missouri discovered the OMAB nomination after noting a citation to it in a Missouri Department of Conservation publication about the Coordinated Resource Management (CRM) program. By late summer of 1996, controversy over the nomination was well underway in Missouri and had spilled over into Arkansas. By fall of 1996, opponents in both states were fully engaged in writing letters, calling officials, and organizing community meetings to protest the proposed Biosphere Reserve.
Due to the controversy, most participating agencies responded to Oviatt's letter by declining further participation in the nomination process. In a letter to the editor published in November of 1996, in a variety of local newspapers, John Linahan, Superintendent of Buffalo National River, publicly stated "the program is not going forward due to controversy and potential impacts to ongoing programs (Linahan 1996)." Thus, by the close of 1996, the nomination was officially dead.
Although, for all intents and purposes, the nomination had been officially surrendered by late Fall, opposition efforts to stop the nomination intensified during this period and remained steady well into 1997. Publication of letters to newspapers and regional journals peaked in the Fall of 1996 through the Spring of 1997. Also, opponents continued to send letters to agency officials and lawmakers demanding that the nomination be halted. These efforts paid off in political arenas when federal, state, and local politicians took steps to stop what was already a deceased nomination effort.
Opponents held a series of public and town meetings during this time. The largest public meetings took place in Missouri in February and April of 1997, again long after the actual demise of the OMAB nomination.
In response to the continued rise of the anti-MAB fervor, officials from Buffalo National River and US MAB began to publicly address citizen concerns about the OMAB nomination. Attempts to alleviate concerns and address allegations about MABs and the OMAB nomination effort, however, were not very successful.
The whole Ozark experience left Steering Committee members and US MAB officials perplexed, frustrated, and amazed. Conversely, it left opponents angry, distrustful, and, most importantly, empowered. Fallout from the Ozarks experience was extraordinary. After successfully thwarting the OMAB nomination, opponents then turned their attention to various other natural resource programs, initiatives, and efforts, some of which were also abandoned by sponsoring agencies, such as MDC's Coordinated Resource Management Program. Also in the aftermath, local and state legislation was proposed, and in some county jurisdictions passed, banning Biosphere Reserves and other international and national natural resource programs. The MAB program was abandoned in the Ozarks with a tainted image amid a haze of unresolved questions and intensified resentments among some Ozark citizens.
In winter of 1996, Roger Soles, the US MAB Executive Director, contacted Dr. Sandy Rikoon of the Department of Rural Sociology at the University of Missouri to enlist our help in determining what had happened in the Ozarks and, most importantly, to address why it happened. The goal of this research was to answer these questions.
To contact authors direct correspondence to: Theresa L. Goedeke, Department of Rural Sociology, 5 Sociology Building, University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri 65211, Telephone (573) 882-7264, E-Mail: c677194@showme.missouri.edu